Sunday 31 October 2010

Stafford Hospital 'must improve further'

Stafford Hospital 'must improve further'

Stafford Hospital A public inquiry into past failings at Stafford Hospital will start in November

Stafford Hospital must make improvements to "meet minimum standards" of safety and quality, the health watchdog has said.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) told Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust the hospital must improve in 11 areas.

But it said the trust had made considerable progress in the two years since a report criticised "appalling standards" at the hospital.

The trust said it had "plans in place to address the issues raised".

The regulator has given the trust's managers 28 days to provide details of how they plan to meet all the standards.

The CQC found services at Stafford Hospital were compliant with five of the 16 essential standards.

'Right direction'

However, it outlined "moderate concerns" over the management of medicines, staff supervision and how the hospital deals with complaints.

The CQC said there were "minor concerns" about eight other areas, including the care of patients and safety of premises.

Andrea Gordon, CQC West Midlands regional director, said it would continue to keep the trust under close review.

Related stories

"I am satisfied that hospital [Stafford] is moving in the right direction, but the trust must not relax its efforts to improve," she said.

"We believe that with the right support the management team at the trust has the capability to make the necessary improvements."

She added trusts had to meet all essential standards or faced enforcement action.

Antony Sumara, chief executive of Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said the trust had itself raised concerns over staff supervision, complaints and the management of medicines during frequent discussions with the CQC and was addressing the issues.

For example, he said more than 90% of staff had had appraisals.

A health watchdog report in 2009 found there had been at least 400 more deaths than expected at Stafford Hospital between 2005 and 2008.

A public inquiry into failings during that time begins on 8 November.

More on This Story

Related stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Saturday 30 October 2010

Rare earths are vital, and China owns them all


Rare earths are vital, and China owns them all


TOKYO (MarketWatch) -- Rare earths may not be on most investors' radars, but they are certainly in almost any high-tech item they use -- and in the world of rare earths, China is king.
The U.S. Geological Survey recognizes 17 different rare earths, materials with science-fictionesque names like lanthanum and gadolinium. They are used in everything: glass polishing and ceramics, automotive catalytic converters, computer monitors, lighting, televisions and pharmaceuticals.
'China is the Saudi Arabia of rare elements ... [and] like oil, rare elements will flow to the highest bidder.'
Mark Williams, Boston University
"We are addicted to rare earths as much as we are addicted to oil," said Byron King, editor of Energy & Scarcity Investors, published by Agora Financial LLC. Yet "none of these elements are famous like gold or silver. None gets shipped in giant ore freighters like iron, aluminum or copper."
"Without these elements, much of the modern economy will just plain shut down," he said.
And yet, King said, "the only people who really study these elements are master's- and PhD-level chemists and solid-state physicists ... and national leaders in places like China."
In fact, China has all but cornered the market. The rare-earths space is like a Monopoly game, in which Beijing owns Boardwalk, Park Place, and well, pretty much all the properties, while the West owns St. James Place.
"China is the Saudi Arabia of rare elements," said Mark Williams, a risk management expert and finance professor at Boston University. And "like oil, rare elements will flow to the highest bidder."
China accounts for about 97% of global rare-earth production -- 139,000 metric tons of material in 2008 -- and it also consumes about 60% of the world's rare earths, according to Sean Brodrick, a natural-resources analyst at UncommonWisdomDaily.com.
Meanwhile, the U.S., which is also a major buyer of rare earths, mined no rare-earth elements last year, USGS said.
"China is consuming more of its own rare earths all the time, so it's exporting less," Brodrick said.
That fact could pose a significant problem for the world market, given that rare earths are used in so many products and gadgets.
Without these elements, "you can say goodbye to much of modernity," said King. "There will be no more television screens, computer hard drives, fiber-optic cables, digital cameras and most medical imaging devices. You can say farewell to space launches and the satellites ... and the world's system for refining petroleum will break down too."

Technology play

Indeed, rare earths are also critical in the cutting-edge technologies promised to create a new green economy and save the planet from a climate-change apocalypse.
"Really, if there are limited rare-earth supplies in world markets, then there will be a very limited 'green' future," King said. "There will be a limited future, period."
The electric motor in Toyota's (TM 70.82, -0.31, -0.44%) (JP:7203 2,859, -22.00, -0.76%)market-leading Prius hybrid, for example, requires 10 to 15 kilograms of lanthanum for the battery, according to William Gamble, president of Emerging Market Strategies in Rhode Island.
The Prius' battery also uses 1 kilogram of neodymium, the key component in the alloy for permanent magnets, he said.
In fact, neodymium is the only element that can create strong permanent magnets, although engineers have tried to find a substitute, King said.
And it's a little-known fact, he added, that strong magnets "are critical to the guidance systems of every missile in the U.S. defense inventory."
Meanwhile, lanthanum, the most commonly used rare earth, has been a key substance for petroleum refining over many decades, so even "non-green" cars depend on the rare earths

Rare earth: The New Great Game

Rare earth: The New Great Game

Post categories: , , ,

Paul Mason | 14:57 UK time, Wednesday, 18 November 2009

The rare earth story goes to the heart of China's relationship with the West - not just that, but to the heart of the West's inability to understand China.

It is a complicated story, involving a whole chunk of the Periodic Table, high secrecy, patent battles and conspiracy theory.

But it boils down to this - 97% of the specialist metals that are crucial to green technology are currently mined in China.

China is already limiting exports and has plans to limit them some more. As a result much of the hi-tech metals industry is also moving to China.

As you can see in my film for Newsnight:


First the science.

There are 17 rare earth metals; they have got their own special bit of the Periodic Table.

In nature they are mainly found clumped together underground in specific types of rock and ore, so they have to be separated.

It takes a large quantity of rock to make a tiny quantity of rare earth. And the rock can often be radioactive. For now just try and remember two elements - Lanthanum and Neodymium.

In the early 1980s a US company called Ovonics perfected a rechargeable battery using rare earth metals that would form the basis of a whole branch of experimentation in electric and hybrid cars.

For geeks, the battery is a Nickel Metal Hydride battery (NiMH) and uses, primarily, Lanthanum.

But remember the name Ovonics. The firm formed a JV with General Motors, ceding 60% ownership to the car giant.

Meanwhile in 1982 General Motors discovered a new compound that could make cheap, highly effective, permanent magnets, again using a rare earth - in this case Neodymium.

Again for geeks - the nomenclature is a Neodimium-Iron-Boron magnet (NdFeB).

The primary effort at turning science into commercial technology here took place in the United States, with GM at the hub.

In parallel, these scientists were putting in place the key technologies for green capitalism:

• battery powered cars would become crucial in the effort to wean us off the petrol engine and;

• permanent magnets are a crucial component in almost any gadget that moves or sees or is guided by a computer.

And both technologies rely on rare earth metals.

Now the geology.

As far as we know there is rare earth ore in California, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Vietnam and Australia. There's even some in Greenland.

But the mother lode is sitting under the mountains 50km (30 miles) north of the Inner Mongolian city of Baotou, in the Bayan Obo mine.

In addition to Bayan Obo, China has also found massive deposits in Sichuan.

As Deng Xiao Ping presciently commented, at a time when electric cars and wind power seemed like ecotopian wet dreams: "Arabia has oil, China has rare earth".

The story of how China seized a stranglehold on the ore supply and then large parts of the metallurgy is a modern epic.

"Either by stupidity or design" says one industry insider, "the Chinese flooded the market in the mid 1990s and collapsed the price. Almost everybody else went out of business".

For the purposes of today, there are three big potential sources of rare earth outside China - in California, Canada and Australia.

The Californian mine has not produced since 1998, the Australian mine was set to start production in 2011 but has just lost its financing and the Canadian mine likewise is aiming at 2011. Together their annual production could amount to one third of China's.

Each of these projects has been hampered by lack of finance, particularly since the financial collapse of 2008. Some industry voices say the danger of China flooding the market again, making the mines uneconomic, means only a strategic rather than pure economic view makes them viable.

So with the doubling of demand and the collapse of non-Chinese supply, China ended up with 97% of the ore market.

But as the industry for processing the metal and making products out of it developed rapidly in the late 1990s and this decade, China has also managed to bring much of that on-shore as well.

In addition to producing nearly all the rare earth metals, companies operating in China consumes 60% of the stuff.

How has it achieved this? First by relentless state-backed focus.

If you do a web search for the scientific papers on rare earth, a lot of Chinese results come back. China's metallurgy industry flourished while the West's declined.

But increasingly China has started to pare back exports. It places an export tax on rare earth and a quota. In each of the last two years the quota has been shrunk by 20%.

There is of course, this being China, a flourishing black market. In addition to the 35,000 tonnes officially exported, another 20,000 tonnes were somehow consumed outside China.

There is also endemic illegal mining of the stuff in the Chinese deserts. This export limit is an overt signal to producers of rare earth products that, to ensure supply, they need to move production into the People's Republic of China.

Now, in addition to the export restrictions so far, another problem is looming. China's demand is predicted to equal the entire Chinese supply by 2012.

In a recently released - but not published in the West - draft report, Rare Earths Industry Development Plan 2009-2015, the Chinese government pondered a complete ban on five heavy rare earth elements and a cap on exports at the current level (35,000 tonnes).

Officials later downplayed this, reminding journalists that since "no-one wants to give up profits" the quotas are rarely enforced. However, if they were enforced - ie if smuggling was stopped - it would be a big problem.

Unless the non-Chinese mines ramp up production, there will be a shortage outside China. So Western companies who want to manufacture have, increasingly, got to move onto the Chinese mainland.

As Dr Ian Higgins of the Birkenhead rare earth firm Less Common Metals told Newsnight:

"What you're going to get is no opportunity for manufacturing outside of China. And it just depends how far you think it's acceptable to take this policy. Somewhere along the line do we say 'yes, the world does need some strategic control in terms of manufacturing these materials'?"

Now to the reasons why this is such a problem for the rest of us.

The wind farm and the hybrid car - the two key technologies in the transition to green energy use - are completely reliant on rare earths.

There is about a tonne of rare earth magnets in a wind turbine and about 2kg of Neodymium in the rechargeable battery of a Toyota Prius, plus another kilogram or so of Lanthanum and Praeseodimium in the drive train up the front.

(For those whose focus is more on blowing people to smithereens, it is also disconcerting that guided munitions such as the US's JDam bomb cannot function without rare earth magnets.)

Now to the response of the two big manufacturing powers outside China - the US and Japan. How have they coped with this complex problem of rising new technology creating a resource monopoly for China?

In summary, very differently.

Japan's car manufacturers jumped into the electronic vehicle game early. As a result a joint venture between Toyota and Panasonic is the world's leading manufacturer of rechargeable NiMH batteries.

Likewise on the magnet front, again largely due to the foresight of Toyota and its ilk, Japan makes the majority of the the Neo magnets that are not made in China.

Japanese companies hold an unspecified stockpile of the key materials. In addition Toyota has become the first car maker to own a mine - it has set up a rare earth mine in Vietnam which will solely produce for its car plants.

In addition, according to The Times newspaper, about 20% of all Japanese rare earth imports are black market. One Japanese offical told The Times:

"If the Chinese export quota limits were the reality of what comes into Japan each year, we would be even more worried than we already are."

Now what you can say about Japan's attitude to rare earth is that it is canny. The state and major companies are aligned, they're combining geo-politics with realpolitik up to - if The Times is correct - the point of tolerating a black market.

They have, in the process, gained the best part of a decade's head start on the West in cleantech cars. And, though they are reliant on China for rare earth, they have effectively pulled China into an Asia-centric rare earth economy.

Contrast this with the US. It was not just the free market that closed the Mountain Pass mine in California, but environmental concerns about radiation.

But for whatever reason the US allowed its own rare earth source - the second largest in the world - to go out of business.

Next, the rare earth magnet business. In 1996, GM sold its magnet business, Magnequench, to a Chinese-led consortium. It then moved large parts of its Neo magnet production operations to China.

Magnequench has now been taken over by a joint Chinese-Canadian business, but the bulk of its operations remain in China.

There is a large literature of political claim and counterclaim over this.

Next the rare earth battery business.

In the late 1990s GM famously scrapped its work on the EV1 plug in car and crushed all known models out in the desert.

It sold Ovonics, together with the patents for the key battery technologies, to Chevron/Texaco - an oil company - which successfully sued Toyota to maintain intellectual property rights over of the technology.

The resulting company was named Cobasys. During its period of ownership by Chevron it failed to produce NiMH batteries in large numbers. A highly polemical account of this can be found in the Sony Pictures film Who Killed The Electric Car?

In 2004, a protracted legal dispute between Cobasys and Toyota/Panasonic was resolved by the Japanese firms agreeing to pay Cobasys about $30m and also royalties on the batteries sold in America out to 2013.

As a result of the legal settlement the battery situation in the US is beginning to free up, but the legal battle leaves those promoting hybrids - and their next-generation development, the plug-in hybrid - rueing their dependence on non-US manufactured NiMH batteries.

Sherry Boschert, author of a book on electric cars, wrote in 2007: "It's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline.

"Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."

Cobasys has now been sold to a JV between Samsung and Bosch, which specialises in the rival Li-Ion battery (which is not so rare earth dependent).

What matters, in the long-run, is that the US lost any kind of lead in electric car battery manufacturing and left the Japanese complex of Toyota, Panasonic and Sanyo as the NiMH battery superpower.

It has also taken a major bet on Li-Ion technology which some commentators doubt is wise.

Meanwhile, when Panasonic and Sanyo merged, China's competition regulator this year ordered these two Japanese companies to divest part of their rare earth battery business.

There are no prizes for guessing which country's cash rich state-backed companies will be queuing to take this division off their hands.

Stepping back to see the bigger picture: in little more than two decades China has achieved absolute dominance in the raw materials side of rare earth and forced much of the manufacturing industry to move to China.

Its coming export restrictions will force more of this, but will probably also stimulate non-Chinese raw material production as the price rises.

In the process China has acquired key tech transfers, as is its stated aim under the so-called 863 Program.

And, as a byproduct of US corporate decision making, the China-Japan axis has emerged as the centre of the rare earth economy.

The US is now so worried about all this that in the National Defense Act 2010 there is for the first time a whole section requiring the government to launch an urgent probe into the impact of rare earth dependence on national security.

But for years US governments - both in the Clinton and Bush eras - have stated they have no problem with the transfer of rare earth jobs, plants and science to China.

The whole story reveals a mismatch between Western and Asian ways of doing business, and of perceptions.

President Barack Obama has now, reportedly, accepted there will be a global resource crunch within a decade, led by peak oil.

But the Chinese and Japanese governments and industrial elites have been operating on a resource agenda for the past decade. China is demonstrably using foreign policy to gain direct access to supplies of raw materials.

When the Afghan war began, and the Russian involvement in the "Stans", it became common to talk about Central Asia being the "New Great Game" for the warring superpowers.

But the real new Great Game is being played in the swamps of the Niger Delta, on the borders of Colombia-Venezuela, in the metal mines of the DRC and now in the rare earth mines of the world.

For example, China attempted to buy 51% of the Australian rare earth mine, but pulled out in September when the Australian government vetoed this.

For decades US foreign policy, and much of the Western world behind it, has focused on security of supply of oil from the Middle East.

Chinese policy - foreign, industrial and commercial - now centres on finding and securing supplies not just of oil but of all major natural resources needed by an economy developing at 9% for the rest of the century.

The old, oil-based policy shaped the world; the rise of freemarket capitalism after 1989 became possible because no rival powers existed that could fragment the world economy and challenge US dominance; the new, multi-resource based policy of China (together with Japan and South Korea) is what is reshaping the world.

It has put roads through Kenya, and sent Chinese engineers into the swamps of West Africa and the airless space of the Andean metal mines.

As Asia powers out of the recession it is enchancing the prestige of a model based on resource monopolies, giant integrated manufacturing empires, overt black-marketeering and state directed industrial policy.

The FT's Martin Wolf reminds us we are stacking up a potentially huge conflict between the US and China over trade and currency - and these two issues are what dominate the thinking of free-market, Western-trained economists when they think of China.

But it seems to me that the West has been largely blindsided by the growing importance of resource strategy.

While the West was thinking about one thing, the big Asian industrial powers were thinking about another

Experts say efforts to beat malaria may backfire





The mosquito is responsible for carrying the malaria parasite from human to human
Efforts to eradicate malaria in some countries may be counter-productive, an international team of researchers suggest.
In the Lancet, they suggest some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, may be better pursuing a policy of controlling the disease.
They also criticise the World Health Organization (WHO) for not providing adequate direction.
But a WHO spokesman said beating malaria must remain the ultimate goal.
The mosquito carries the malaria parasites'Noble' goal
The Lancet looks at the feasibility of eradicating malaria from the map, in the same way smallpox was conquered.
As the report points out, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation set the world such a target in 2007, an aim which was then endorsed by the WHO's Director-General Margaret Chan.
The Lancet concludes such a goal, while noble, "could lead to dangerous swings in funding and political commitment, in malaria and elsewhere".


Malaria facts

  • Largely preventable and curable
  • In 2008 caused a million deaths - mostly African children
  • About 2,000 return to the UK with malaria every year
  • Only 12% of these become seriously ill
  • Symptoms can take up to a year to appear
And the WHO is accused of failing "to rise to their responsibilities to give the malaria community essential direction".
The series of articles instead urges a pragmatic approach in which efforts and resources are concentrated on shrinking the global area where malaria still prevails.
It suggests some countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, may be better pursuing a policy of controlling the disease rather than one of eradication.
The report's authors include Professor Richard Feacham of University of California's Global Health Group and researchers from the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
Saving lives
In an editorial accompanying the series, the Lancet's editor-in-chief Dr Richard Horton and executive editor Dr Pamela Das, argue control may save more lives.
"If existing control efforts were indeed scaled up, by 2015, 1.14 million children's lives could be saved in sub-Saharan Africa alone. This finding is important. The quest for elimination must not distract existing good malaria control work," they write.
They also conclude that "malaria will only be truly eradicable when an effective vaccine is fully available".


“Start Quote

Premature efforts at elimination, before countries are ready, will be counterproductive”
End Quote Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spokeswoman
Responding to the report in a statement, Robert Newman, director of the WHO's Global Malaria Programme, said the ultimate goal had to be eradication
"WHO has always supported - and will always continue to support - endemic countries in their efforts to control and eliminate malaria," he writes.
"It is entirely feasible to eliminate malaria from countries and regions where the intensity of transmission is low to moderate, and where health systems are strong.
"Eliminating malaria from countries where the intensity of transmission is high and stable, such as in tropical Africa, will require more potent tools and stronger health systems than are available today."
Shrinking map
Malaria is caused by five species of a parasite that can be carried from human to human by mosquitoes.
Over the last 150 years, the portion of the world where malaria is still endemic has shrunk, but the disease is still endemic in 99 countries.
However 32 of these countries, most of them on the edges of the endemic zone, are attempting to eradicate the disease, while the rest are trying to reduce infections and deaths though control measures.
But switching from a policy of controlling the disease to one of eradication brings with it problems and risks, according to the report.
The authors point out that malaria and mosquitoes do not respect national borders and that both parasite and insect may develop resistance to existing drugs.
They also warn switching funds from control to eradication may negatively impact upon measures which have been shown to reduce infection and mortality.
A spokeswoman for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said: "Malaria eradication is a long-term goal.
"We believe that the WHO will play an important role in helping countries decide when they are ready to undertake elimination and what conditions and capabilities need to be in place for them to do so.
"High-level, sustained control will be essential before elimination can be attempted, and premature efforts at elimination, before countries are ready, will be counterproductive."

World Bank Launches New Global Partnership to “Green” National Accounts


World Bank Launches New Global Partnership to “Green” National Accounts


Press Release No:2011/155/SDN
Nagoya, Japan, October 28, 2010 – The World Bank today announced a new global partnership that will give developing countries the tools they need to integrate the economic benefits that ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs provide, into national accounting systems. The goal is to introduce the practice of ecosystem valuation into national accounts at scale so that better management of natural environments becomes “business as usual”.
Speaking in Nagoya, Japan at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting, World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick said the alarming loss of biological diversity around the world can be partly attributed to the lack of proper value being placed on ecosystems and the services they provide. He said the new Partnership can provide the “missing information” on a country’s “natural capital” to guide leaders in decision-making.
"The natural wealth of nations should be a capital asset valued in combination with its financial capital, manufactured capital, and human capital," said Zoellick. “National accounts need to reflect the vital carbon storage services that forests provide and the coastal protection values that come from coral reefs and mangroves.
“Through this new partnership, we plan to pilot ways to integrate ecosystem valuation into national accounts and then scale up what works to countries around the world.”
According to a forthcoming World Bank publication, The Changing Wealth of Nations, the economic value of farmland, forests, minerals and energy worldwide exceeds $44 trillion, with $29 trillion of that in developing countries. This value is primarily commercial, however. Other value lies in the services ecosystems such as forests provide, including hydrology regulation, soil retention, and pollination -- as a home to bees and other insects. Cutting down a forest for its timber may have negative consequences for other sectors of the economy, such as loss of agricultural productivity, loss of capacity for hydroelectric power, and loss of water quality.
The Global Partnership for Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services Valuation and Wealth Accounting builds on the United Nations Environment Programme project “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB) which, last week, released its final report. Among other things, TEEB concluded that the “invisibility” of many of nature’s services to the economy results in widespread neglect of natural capital, leading to decisions that degrade ecosystem services and biodiversity.
The new Partnership takes TEEB's work to the next level, developing the systems needed to bring the value of natural capital to the highest level of a country’s economic decision-making. By demonstrating ecosystem accounting at scale for a critical mass of countries, the World Bank envisions that the approach will eventually be adopted by many countries.
Valuing ecosystems in this way would change the calculation that a country would make, for example, in clearing mangroves for shrimp farming. The calculation would no longer simply be the revenue from profit on shrimp farming minus the farming costs. The loss to the economy of coastal protection from cyclones and the loss of fish and other products provided by mangroves would also be factored in.
The Partnership will include developed and developing countries, international organizations such as UNEP and conservation and development non-governmental organizations as well as the global organization for legislators, GLOBE International.
The initial five-year pilot will:
 Demonstrate how countries can quantify the value of ecosystems and their services in terms of income and asset value
 Develop ways to incorporate these values into planning and design of specific policies linking wealth and economic growth
 Develop guidelines for the practical implementation of ecosystem valuation that can be applied around the world.
Launching the first phase of a partnership to “green” national accounts in a group of six to 10 countries – starting with Colombia and India – Zoellick was joined by Sandra Bessudo Lion, High Commissioner for the Environment, Colombia; Ryu Matsumoto, Minister of Environment, Japan; Erik Solheim, Minister of the Environment, Norway; Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Vijai Sharma, Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, India; and Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
In Colombia and India, feasibility studies to identify priority ecosystems will start soon. Other countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central Europe have indicated strong interest in being pilot countries under the Partnership.
Contacts:
In Nagoya: Roger Morier (+1 202) 369-1852, rmorier@worldbank.org
Tomoko Hirai, 090-5496-8066, thirai@worldbank.org
In Washington: Elizabeth Mealey (202) 458-4475, emealey@worldbank.org



Permanent URL for this page:

Friday 29 October 2010

Lord Sainsbury calls for new debate on

Lord Sainsbury calls for new debate on GM crops

Genetically modified maize. Picture from Science Photo Library. Herbicide-resistant maize can be grown using this biotechnology

A former science minister has called for the debate on genetically modified crops to be reopened, arguing they are vital for a growing global population.

Ahead of his speech at the British Science Association festival, Lord Sainsbury warned it would be foolish for the UK to rule out the technology.

He said proper scientific evidence was needed about GM crops – branded “Frankenstein foods” in the past.

Currently, there is no commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK.

Various types of GM plants have been grown for research at sites in England since 1993, but the development of GM farming in Europe has been held back by EU legislation.

However, in recent months there has been a shift in Brussels with moves to hand back decision-making over the crops to individual countries.


Lord Sainsbury, who served in Tony Blair’s Department for Trade and Industry from 1998 to 2006, said: “It is 12 years since we had that last very fraught and, I think, not very productive debate about it.

‘Big problem’

“Twelve years on, we have got 30 million acres across the world of GM crops, we have got pretty much all the cotton industry in India and China on those kinds of crops and of course people are now beginning to think seriously about what is the major problem we face in the world, which is how we feed 9 billion people in 2050.

“We need now to have the debate again because in the last debate there was not proper scientific evidence put on the table.

“We need that scientific evidence because GM crops can play an important part in this big problem,” he told BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme.

Lord Sainsbury acknowledged that many of the ambitious claims made by the companies behind the technology for the benefits of GM had yet to deliver results, but said that, in time, he expected the genetically altered crops to have as large an impact as computers in “changing the way we live”.

“I think to rule out GM, which is this major new biotechnology, would be very foolish,” he said.

More on This Story

Related stories

Thursday 28 October 2010

wild Iberian lynx

illermo Lopez 

 on the hunt for a glimpse of a wild Iberian lynx
It appears out of nowhere, stealthily slinking into view and well camouflaged against the dry Mediterranean backdrop.
    We have been waiting in a cramped hide since the crack of dawn. And having been told that the chance of getting a glimpse of one of these beasts is vanishingly small, we have almost given up hope.
    But suddenly, there it is: the most endangered cat on the planet, the Iberian lynx.
    For just a second, it stops, staring at us with its kohl-rimmed, yellow eyes.
    It is about a metre long, with a short, sand-coloured coat and leopard-like spots; it has large paws and a short, bobbed tail.
    Then, distracted by a rustle in the grass, its huge black-tufted ears twitch. It crouches, pounces, and emerges back into sight a second later with a rabbit dangling from its mouth.
    And, as quickly as it appeared, it is gone, blending back into the forest with its prized meal.
    Iberian lynx The Iberian lynx has suffered a catastrophic drop in numbers
    We are in Andujar, in Andalucia, Spain, which along with the Donana National Park, just south of Seville, is one of the last isolated pockets where the Iberian lynx can be seen.
    This cat was once common across the whole of the Iberian peninsula, but from the 1960s its numbers plummeted, dropping from an estimated 3,000 to approximately 150 in 2005.
    Habitat loss, poaching and road accidents all helped to push this cat to the brink of extinction. Disease outbreaks in the cat's main food source - wild rabbits - have added to the woe.
    In the past decade, frantic efforts have been under way to conserve the last few cats.
    Some of these approaches have been quite straightforward, such as implementing supplementary feeding stations that are used to boost the cat's diet when rabbit numbers are low - like the spot where we had been lucky enough to spy our wild lynx that morning.
    Iberian lynx Taking some wild lynx into captivity was a tough decision
    But conservationists have had to get radical, too.
    In La Olivilla, in Jaen, some lynx have been taken from the wild and placed in captivity with one key purpose: to breed.
    Mariajo Perez, who runs the centre, tells me that this is not something that conservationists do lightly. But the situation was so bad, they were left with little choice.
    She says: "It's worked really well so far. Our cats have been breeding really successfully - we have had eight cubs this year."
    There are now about 40 cats in the centre, and other captive breeding centres in Andalucia have also managed to give a much needed boost to lynx numbers.
    But the next challenge is to release the cats back into the wild, which could start next year.
    Guillermo Lopez, from the Lynx Life project, knows all about moving animals.
    He and his colleagues have been relocating some of the wild cats from the Andujar region to another carefully selected site some kilometres away, in the hope of establishing a new population.
    He says: "So far, we have released six individuals - three males and three females. One of the females has had two cubs, so we feel very optimistic."
    Lynx habitat in Spain The team has been looking for new sites for the lynx - but could they move even farther afield in the future?
    Moving animals from one place to another - or translocation - is becoming an increasingly common weapon in the conservationists' fight against extinction.
    It helps to build up new populations and to ensure genetic diversity among ever shrinking groups of animals.
    But scientists are now considering a much more controversial measure, which could one day mean that animals like the Iberian lynx are moved even farther afield.

    “Start Quote

    It is worth at least considering whether the Iberian lynx - this truly endangered species - could in the future find a home in, say, the British Isles”
    End Quote Professor Chris Thomas University of York
    Chris Thomas, professor of conservation biology at the University of York, UK, says: "The problem is that as the climate changes, the places that are best to put such endangered species back are not necessarily the same places where they historically used to occur."
    He says that a changing climate will mean that some species will not be able to adapt or perhaps, due to geographical barriers, migrate to a new, more suitable home.
    So instead, scientists will do it for them: literally pack up whole populations of species to shift them elsewhere. It is an idea called assisted migration (or assisted colonisation).
    And it has many critics. Intentionally creating invasive and therefore potentially problematic species goes against just about every conservation convention. But the idea has been gaining momentum among some.
    Prof Thomas says: "When I first heard about this, my immediate reaction was that this is crazy.
    "But if we have a large number of species, potentially thousands, even hundreds of thousands, that are going to die out from climate change, we should at least ask the question: 'Is there anywhere else on Earth that they don't currently live in where they could in the future survive?'"
    Iberian lynx Things are looking up for the Iberian lynx
    So far, examples of assisted migration have been few, but include a study that revealed the small skipper and marbled white butterflies did well when moved further north in the UK.
    But Prof Thomas argues that we must at least start thinking about the feasibility of these kinds of moves - even when it comes to animals like the Iberian lynx.
    He explains: "It is worth at least considering whether the Iberian lynx - this truly endangered species - could in the future find a home in, say, the British Isles.
    "Of course, the answer might be that this wouldn't work. But we should contemplate such things given that the climate is changing, and the best places for a species are now on the move."
    No place like home
    For now, at least, efforts to save the Iberian lynx look set to remain focused in its home domain.
    And scientists are optimistic about its future. Since 2005, numbers of wild lynx have steadily grown to around 300.
    Miguel Simon, director of the Lynx Life project, says: "In the 10 years that we have been working on its conservation, the population in the Sierra Morena has doubled, and there has been a 50% increase in Donana."
    The next step is to create three more populations in Portugal and Spain, at which point the cat would no longer be classed as critically endangered.
    And with this, Dr Simon says, this magnificent Mediterranean cat could finally lose its unfortunate claim to fame as the world's rarest feline, and instead become a symbol of conservation success.


    Featured post

    More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

    More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...